Should a martial art require skills from outside of the school in order to progress?

That's true, but there's a difference between being trained for competition and just going to competition with what you were taught, when there was no focus on that competition context. It's definitely not as different as the original point.
Learning punches and kicks and then going to a competition that has specific rules about how punches and kicks are applied is very different than learning groundfighting and then learning firearm safety on the side.
 
Learning punches and kicks and then going to a competition that has specific rules about how punches and kicks are applied is very different than learning groundfighting and then learning firearm safety on the side.
Yes.
 
I used to have supplemental training to everything we taught. Probably wasn't necessary, but people liked it and they learned a lot.

But one size doesn't fit all in the idea of this thread. Besides, just regular training takes a long time. Not enough hours in the day and not enough years in the dojo life of students. When I say "dojo life" I mean how long and how often the student trains. It doesn't refer to all the crazy Martial Artists we have here that train forever. (There ain't no hope for us anyway!)
 
Does this include:

- shoot accuracy.
- fast draw.
- ...?
No. Basic gun safety boils down to a few very simple rules.
1 - Treat every firearm as if it is loaded unless you have personally confirmed that it is not.
2 - Never point a firearm at anything you're not willing to destroy.
3 - Keep your booger picker off the boom stick until you're ready to fire.
4 - Know your target and what's around it.

That's really all you need.
 
No. Basic gun safety boils down to a few very simple rules.
1 - Treat every firearm as if it is loaded unless you have personally confirmed that it is not.
2 - Never point a firearm at anything you're not willing to destroy.
3 - Keep your booger picker off the boom stick until you're ready to fire.
4 - Know your target and what's around it.

That's really all you need.
I also like the theory of reversing #1 when you actually need it. Assume it isn't loaded until you verify that it is.

The two loudest sounds are a bang when you expect a click, and a click when you expect a bang.
 
I also like the theory of reversing #1 when you actually need it. Assume it isn't loaded until you verify that it is.
That is the opposite of a safety rule and invites disaster.
 
That is the opposite of a safety rule and invites disaster.
What I mean is, in the event that you need to use your firearm to protect yourself, make sure it's in the condition that it is ready to be used.
 
That is the opposite of a safety rule and invites disaster.
I think he was talking about making sure it's loaded when you mean for it to be (before holstering at the start of the day, etc.), which is loosely the reverse of the safety rule.
 
If you don't teach it, you don't test it. Simple. You may ENCOURAGE it, of course.
100% agree. Students are paying you as an instructor for you to share what you know with them not for you to tell them to go pay another person to learn another skill they can't provide.
 
What I mean is, in the event that you need to use your firearm to protect yourself, make sure it's in the condition that it is ready to be used.
It's too late, at that point. Checking it should have been done WAY before you need it. And confirming it's loaded and ready to fire is not a safety rule.
I think he was talking about making sure it's loaded when you mean for it to be (before holstering at the start of the day, etc.), which is loosely the reverse of the safety rule.
Checking to make sure the gun is operational is important. But it's absolutely not a safety rule.
100% agree. Students are paying you as an instructor for you to share what you know with them not for you to tell them to go pay another person to learn another skill they can't provide.
I think it also matters what the students are there to learn. If they are there to learn Art A, then I question weather they should be required to learn things that are clearly not a part of Art A.
I'm pretty good with rapiers and handguns. I do not teach their use in our dojang, because people are there to learn the MDK style of TKD. Not the sword techniques of Di Grassi, Saviolo, or Agrippa.
 
Those wouldn't normally be part of "firearm safety". That topic is usually about how to not accidentally hurt yourself or others with it, and related topics.
It's like to talk about whether takedown (how to shoot) or anti-takedown (firearm safety) is more important. Should we address both?
 
And confirming it's loaded and ready to fire is not a safety rule.
On the one hand, who said it was? On the other, I consider being able to protect myself a part of safety.
 
You did. By replying to a comment about basic safety rules to add this nonsense.
You're admitting that I didn't actually say it, but that you inferred it from my post.
Kind of missed the point, didn't you? Shocking.
Oh, so now we're resorting to insults and condescension instead of actual arguments. You use this tactic a lot. This is another one of those times I would put you on my ignore list if you weren't a moderator. It's a shame that I can't, because I'd probably enjoy this forum a lot more if I didn't have to put up with your (to use your word) nonsense.
 
You're admitting that I didn't actually say it, but that you inferred it from my post.
Context is sort of how these things work. If people are talking about safety rules and you chime in, it's reasonable to think you're talking about, you know... safety rules.
 
Context is sort of how these things work. If people are talking about safety rules and you chime in, it's reasonable to think you're talking about, you know... safety rules.
Other folks understood exactly what I meant. You're purposefully misunderstanding me so you can argue with me and point out how little I "get it". It's something you do quite often, and its really unbecoming from someone who is supposedly a high-ranking traditional martial artist and moderator on a martial arts forum. I cannot put you on ignore.

I know there are ways to separate what someone does as a user and as someone with elevated permissions (i.e. moderator, administrator). Something like that would work wonders on this site. I get that it would make things very confusing if I were to ignore things you post as a moderator, for example I might miss warnings or directives. There's got to be some way we can do that, even if it's moderators having a poster account and a moderator account.

If someone takes exception to the way I post, they can put me on ignore. They aren't forced to listen to me in order to participate on this forum. If someone takes exception to the way you post, then they are forced to put up with you or leave.

What you say isn't to the point where I'd report it to the mods. You're just being a jerk, you're not breaking any rules. But I also don't want to put up with a jerk.
 
Oh, so now we're resorting to insults and condescension instead of actual arguments. You use this tactic a lot. This is another one of those times I would put you on my ignore list if you weren't a moderator. It's a shame that I can't, because I'd probably enjoy this forum a lot more if I didn't have to put up with your (to use your word) nonsense.
I don't put people on ignore for reports, but I've found it very easy to ignore someone's posts. Most of the time if I see a name I'll scroll right past what they write unless I have a specific reason to read it-that gets rid of any temptation to respond since I've nothing to respond to.

It made the forum a lot more pleasant once I stopped replying to the people that agitate me. Seems obvious but just pointing it out because of how much of a difference it made for me.
 
I cannot put you on ignore.
Sure you can. Is someone putting a gun to your head and forcing you to read my posts and respond to them? No? Then it sounds like a self-discipline problem to me.
 
Back
Top